1. Schemata for building a clause [ S NP VP][ NP Det N] [ VP V NP] Objectives: Describing English Arriving at a universal inventory of such schematas (the structure building devices used in every language) that may constitute the basis for language acquisition

2. Invisible structures S NP VP Det NV NP Det N some linguist hates every cat no human speaks every language [ S NP VP][ NP Det N] [ VP V NP] S  NP VPNP  Det N VP  V NP

3. A few more pieces: More VP S NP VP Det NAux VNP Det AN every catwill eat a fat mouse [[every cat] NP [will eat [a fat mouse] NP ] VP ] S

4. More VP [ VP V NP] [ VP Aux V NP] hit Billwill hit Bill has does [ VP V]runsJohn runs [ VP (Aux) V (NP)]

5. More NP [ NP Det A N] The black horse [ NP N] Dogs bark John sings [ NP (Det) (A) N]

6. Generating Constituent Structure [[every cat] NP [will eat [a fat mouse] NP ] VP ] S 1.S  NP VP[NP VP] S 2.NP  (Det) (A) N[(Det) (A) N] NP 3.VP  (Aux) V (NP)[(Aux) V (NP)] NP 4.i. N  {cat, cats, Leo, …} ii. V  {snore, eat, love, …} iii. Det  {every, the …} iv. Aux  {will, has, …}

7. Local adjustments Agreement a. i. he loves Joeii. they love Joe loves V{3rd, SG} love V{3rd, PL} he N{3rd, SG} they N{3rd, PL} b. i. S  [NP F VP F ]ii. VP F  V F NP Subcategorization a.i. Leo ateii. Leo ate pizza iii. *Leo lovediv. *Leo died Bill love: __ NPdie: __  eat: __(NP)

8. Prepositional Phrases: Internal structure and external distribution [with [every good intention] NP ] PP [just after lunch] [right in]John walked right in PP  (Adv) P (NP)[(Adv) P (NP)] PP a. I spoke just after lunch with every good intention b. A chat just after lunch with every good intention is badly needed NP  (Det) (A) N (PP*) VP  (Aux) (Adv) V (NP) (PP*) VP  be PP/AP/NPbe on the roof/clever/ a doctor

9. What we got so far John runs Some dogs run in the park John hit Bill in the kitchen * John hit in the kitchen A man with a beard is on the roof John ate every sandwhich on the table John saw the woman with dark eyes in the park

10. How to get there S NP VP Det N PP PP P NP Det N Det N A man with a beard is on the roof NP  Det N PPNP  Det N VP  is PPPP  P NP

11. Recursion a. PP  (Adv) P (NP) b. NP  (Det) (A) N (PP*) i.most cats love me ii.most cats [from Italy] love me iii.most cats [from [a city in Italy]] love me iv.most cats [from [a city in [the mountains in Italy]]] love me Productivity: we can produce (and understand) an indefinite number of phrases while having only very limited cognitive resources

12. Structural ambiguity I threatened the boy with a knife a.i. the boy I threatened was with a knife ii. the threatening was with a knife b.i. I [threatened [the boy] NP [with a knife] PP ] VP ii. I [threatened [the boy with a knife ] NP ] VP c.i. VPii. VP V NP PP V NP [the boy] [with a knife] [the boy][ with a knife]

13. Structural ambiguity and constituency tests I threatened the boy with a knife –Proforms i. I threatened him with a knife Cannot mean the boy was with a knife ii. I threatened him b. Dislocation i. It is the boy I threatened with a knife Cannot mean the boy was with a knife ii. It is the boy with a knife that I threatened Cannot mean the threatening was with a knife

14. Pronominalization patterns I [threatened [the boy with a knife] NP ] i. I threatened him with a knife ii. I threatened him *(i)  (ii) I [threatened [the boy] NP [with a knife] PP ]  (i)* (ii)

17. Pervasiveness of structural ambiguity An uncle of the boy from Rome complained I have met many clever women and men John does not think that Mary left and Bill complained Mary declared that John attacked Bill in the garden Flying planes can be dangerous

18. Factors that affect ambiguity resolution The semantics of the items involved I saw the boy with a red sweater I saw the boy through a hole in the wall Contextual knowledge I saw the boy with my binocular World knowledge I didn’t recognize the boy with a hat I recognized the boy with my eyes

19. Structural vs. lexical ambiguity I went to the bank Ho comprato una piantina (I) have bought a little plant/ a map I found the bugI found the flea I threatened the boy with a knife

20. More recursion VP  V CPCP  C SC  that say, claim, believe, know,…__ CP John claims that Mary smokes John said that Bill claims that Mary smokes John said that Bill claims that Mary knows that every cat is on the roof ….

22. What Phrase Structure [ = Constituent Structure] is Native speakers develop spontaneously an implicit knowledge about well formed structures in their language Words are put together into constituents (not into structureless sequences of words) This can be seen through a series of tests (having to do with coordination, dislocation, etc.) that tap the speakers’ knowledge

23. The theory of Phrase Structure Constituent structure can be characterized through a set of rules/schemata of the form X  Y 1,…,Y n [ X Y 1,…Y n ] where X and Y i are drawn from an inventory of linguistic categories - All languages (and all machines) can be described through generalizations of rules of this sort

24. Evidence for the theory of phrase structure How it accounts for constituency tests How it explains structural ambiguity How it explains the productivity of language

25. Summary again 1.S  NP VP 2.CP  C S 3.NP  (Det) (A) N (PP*) 4.VP  (Aux) (Adv) V (NP)(CP) (PP*) 5.PP  (Adv) P (NP) These rules characterize our knowledge of English (the competence of a native speaker)

26. The competence/performance distinction Performance: the use of our knowledge in concrete speech acts * John too much wine drank * He like Mary Do you like beans? * I like Things that enter into performance: state of attention/health, what you have ingested, sudden changes in plans,…

27. What is next Of all the conceivable ways of forming languages, humans seem to have evolved one that has rather specific properties (e.g. it has a constituent structure of a certain sort). How can we characterize them? There are very diverse ways of getting at this. - Through mathematical considerations about the ‘generative power’ of natural languages - Through empirical refinement of our hypotheses

28. Towards a better theory of Phrase Structure 1.S  NP VP 2.CP  C S 3.NP  (Det) (A) N (PP*) 4.VP  (Aux) (Adv) V (NP)(CP) (PP*) 5.PP  (Adv) P (NP) Phrases tend to have a center (the head) XP  YP X ZP

29. Directions to explore Maybe all phrases have a head (including those that do not seem to) The structure of major constituents remains rather flat; maybe we should take a second look VP AuxV NP CP PP

30. Towards a better theory of phrase structure: A second look at the VP VP Adv V NP PP often smokes [a cigarette] [in the garden] John often smokes a cigarette in the garden Mary does too Mary rarely does Mary rarely does in the kitchen * Mary rarely does the pipe in the garden

31. Binary branching within the VP VP AdvVP VPPP VNP John often smokes a cigarette in the garden Mary does too Mary rarely does Mary rarely does in the kitchen

32. The coordination test VP1 AdvVP2 VP3 PP V NP John [[often smokes a cigarette in the garden] and [rarely smokes a cigar in the bedroom]]VP1 John often [[smokes a cigarette in the garden] and [drinks beer in the living room]]VP2 John often [smokes a cigarette and drinks beer] in the garden VP3

33. A left-right asymmetry [ VP Adv VP] [ VP VP PP] [ VP V NP] John often drinks wine in the kitchen after dinner with friends… * John often rarely sometimes… drinks beer * John often drinks wine juice after dinner [ VP Adv V’] [ V’ V’ PP] [ V’ V NP] Non rec.Rec. Non rec.

34. Findings The VP comes in binary branching layers with both recursive and non recursive strata VP = V’’ Adv V’ V’[in the park] PP often V NP smokes [a cigarette]

35. Arguments: [V NP] V’ vs. Adjuncts: [V’ NP] V’ Arguments: non recursive and closer to the head a. i. I ate pizzaii.* I ate lunch pizza iii. I ate pizza in the park iv. ? I ate in the park pizza Adjuncts: recursive and freer in order I ate pizza for lunch in the park I ate pizza in the park for lunch